Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

6-14-2005

Tjen v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-2431

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

Recommended Citation "Tjen v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1021. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1021

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 04-2431

YUKI TJEN,

Petitioner

v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondents1

On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A95-429-619)

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 3, 2005

BEFORE: FUENTES, GREENBERG, and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 14, 2005)

1 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(b)(2) Alberto Gonzales and Michael Chertoff automatically have been substituted for John Ashcroft and Thomas Ridge as parties in these proceedings. OPINION OF THE COURT

GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.

This matter comes on before the court on a petition for review of the decision of

the Board of Immigration Appeals entered April 21, 2004, dismissing Yuki Tjen’s appeal

from a decision and order of an immigration judge which, inter alia, denied Tjen’s

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under section

242(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,

(a)(1). In these

proceedings we will uphold the administrative determination if substantial evidence

supports the determination that Tjen did not establish that he is a refugee entitled to relief

on one of the enumerated statutory grounds. See Gao v. Ashcroft,

(3d

Cir. 2002). After our review of this matter we are satisfied that it is perfectly clear that

substantial evidence supports the administrative determination and thus Tjen is not

entitled to relief. Accordingly, the BIA properly dismissed his appeal.

The petition for review of the decision of April 21, 2004, will be denied.

2